K.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of the Court has referred this Special Appeal to a larger Bench as in its opinion the decision of another Division Bench in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajendra Shanker Nigam required, 1973 A. L. J. 703 reconsideration. This Special Appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against the decision of our brother K. N. Singh, in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, quashing the order of the State Government dated 22-3-1971 suspending the petitioner Jawahar Lal Bhargava from service presumably under Rule 49-A of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
(2.) The petitioner-respondent Jawahar Lal Bhargava at the material date when he was suspended was posted at Etah as a Judicial Officer. Certain complaints were received against his conduct in the discharge of his duties as Judicial Officer. The District Judge of Etah by his letter dated 26-3-1971 informed Sri Bhargava that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh had suspended him with immediate effect Pending inquiry against him and appended a copy or the letter dated 22-3-1971 from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Appointment (C) Department, the material part of which translated by me into English is as follows:- "I am directed to say that the Governor has ordered that Sri Jawahar Lal Bhargava, Judicial Officer, Etah, be suspended with immediate effect during the pendency of the inquiry against him."
(3.) The petitioner's case was that although it was mentioned in the order that the petitioner had been suspended pending inquiry against him, this statement of fact in the order was incorrect as no charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner and that at the time when the order of suspension was passed neither any inquiry was proceeding against the petitioner nor was any such inquiry contemplated and further even though the order of suspension was passed as far back as 22-3-1971, no charge sheet had been served on the petitioner till even the day when the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution was filed in toe High Court on 14-5-1973. In the petition it was pleaded that the Government has not yet made up its mind that it will institute a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner nor it obviously made up its mind at the time of the passing of the order of suspension of the petitioner and that in the case of the petitioner there was no exceptional or compelling circumstance because of which the order of suspension was necessary much prior to the Government having even found a prima facie case against him for making up its mind to hold a departmental inquiry. It was averred that despite representations having been made to the High Court and to the Government no relief was afforded and the petitioner had no other alternative but to challenge the order of suspension by way of a writ petition. The grounds on which the order of suspension was assailed were; (1) that no inquiry was either pending or contemplated against the petitioner at the time of the passing of the impugned order of suspension dated 22-3-1971 (2) that even though the order of suspension was passed on 22-3-1971, no charge sheet had been served on the petitioner till the day of tiling of the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution: (3) that no departmental inquiry was pending against. the petitioner and (4) that there was no valid charge against the petitioner.;